Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The COA, the CSC, and the Commission on Elections are equally
pre-eminent in their respective spheres. Neither one may claim
dominance over the others. In case of conflicting rulings, it is the
Judiciary which interprets the meaning of the law and ascertains
which view shall prevail. (Borromeo vs. Civil Service Commission,
199 SCRA 911 [1991])
Except in cases when there is grave abuse of discretion in the
exercise of its discretion, the Supreme Court has adopted a policy of
non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman’s
constitutionally mandated powers on this matter. (Marohomsalic v.
Cole, 547 SCRA 98 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
58
59
60
tion made by petitioner, the remaining lot (i.e., the 297-square meter lot) of
private respondent suffers from an impairment or decrease in value,
consequential damages may be awarded to private respondent. On the other
hand, if the expropriation results to benefits to the remaining lot of private
respondent, these consequential benefits may be deducted from the awarded
consequential damages, if any, or from the market value of the expropriated
property. We held in B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals (216
SCRA 584 [1992]) that: To determine just compensation, the trial court
should first ascertain the market value of the property, to which should be
added the consequential damages after deducting therefrom the
consequential benefits which may arise from the expropriation. If the
consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages, these items
should be disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property should be
paid in every case.
Same; Same; Same; Unjust Enrichment; An award of consequential
damages for property not taken is not tantamount to unjust enrichment of
the property owner—there is no unjust enrichment when the person who will
benefit has a valid claim to such benefit.—An award of consequential
damages for property not taken is not tantamount to unjust enrichment of
the property owner. There is unjust enrichment “when a person unjustly
retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or
property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and
good conscience.” Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that “[e]very
person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.” The principle of
unjust enrichment under Article 22 requires two conditions: (1) that a person
is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is
derived at another’s expense or damage. There is no unjust enrichment when
the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such benefit. As stated,
consequential damages are awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the
remaining property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in
value. Thus, there is a valid basis for the grant of consequential damages to
the property owner, and no unjust enrichment can result therefrom.
61
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
_______________
62
_______________
63
4 Letter dated 19 June 1991, signed by City Assessor Myrna R. Pimentel. Records,
p. 207.
5 The three Commissioners were the City Assessor, the City Registrar of Deeds of
Cagayan de Oro, and Mrs. Cecilia Roa (id. at 160). The City Assessor, who was also
the CAC Chairman, was later replaced by Provincial Assessor Corazon Beltran (id., at
pp. 178-179; Rollo, p. 140).
6 Rollo, p. 71.
7 Id., at p. 72.
64
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT
“x x x
The property litigated upon is strategically located along Recto Avenue
(National Highway) which is a commercial district. Fronting it across the national
highway is the Cagayan Coca Cola Plant and the Shell Gasoline Station. It adjoins
an establishment known as the Palana Grocery Store and after it is the Northern
Mindanao Development Bank. Three Hundred (300) meters to the west of plaintiff’s
property is the gigantic structure of the Gaisano City department store along Recto
Avenue and Corrales Avenue Extension. Towards
_______________
8 Id., at p. 73.
9 Records, p. 296.
10 Rollo, p. 20.
11 The new commissioners were (1) Atty. Avelino Pakino, the Registrar of Deeds
of Cagayan de Oro, (2) Ms. Cecilia Roa (reappointed), and (3) Mr. Norberto Cosadio,
the Provincial Assessor. Records, p. 304.
65
66
_______________
67
_______________
68
_______________
69
The Issues
18 Rollo, p. 54.
19 Id., at p. 55.
70
_______________
20 National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 850, 860; 436
SCRA 195, 203 (2004), citing Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus, 40 Phil. 550 (1919).
21 Article III, Section 9 of the 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.
22 B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89980, 14 December
1992, 216 SCRA 584, 586.
23 Id., at p. 587, citing Cruz, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1991 ed., p. 74.
24 Id., at p. 586.
25 Id.
26 National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 214 Phil. 583, 590; 129
SCRA 665, 673 (1984), citing Alfonso v. Pasay City, 106 Phil. 1017 (1960).
27 Municipality of La Carlota v. Spouses Gan, 150-A Phil. 588, 594; 45 SCRA
235, 241 (1972).
71
_______________
72
_______________
73
_______________
74
“To determine just compensation, the trial court should first ascertain the
market value of the property, to which should be added the consequential
damages after deducting therefrom the consequential benefits which may
arise from the expropriation. If the consequential benefits exceed the
consequential damages, these items should be disregarded altogether as the
basic value of the property should be paid in every case.”
_______________
36 The consequential benefits that shall be deducted refer to the actual benefits
derived by the owner on the remaining portion of his land which are the direct and
proximate results of the improvements consequent to the expropriation, and not the
general benefits which he receives in common with the community. (Regalado,
REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. 1, p. 746)
37 Supra note 22.
75
“x x x
(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest.
_______________
76
x x x”
_______________